9 Responses to Another “Fox Guarding the Hen House” Case Shows the Dangers of Self-Collection

  1. […] one more blogger reviews a case regarding the dangers of self-collection here Categories: General Tags: case law references, Forensics & Collection, quality control […]

  2. Craig Ball says:

    Nice job, Ralph. I wonder if that sanction will be sustained? Notification in future cases may be a hard sell to the appellate court. I expect it will be ameliorated sua sponte or modified (with the plaintiff’s purchased endorsement).

  3. […] Continue Reading: Click Here ——————————————- […]

  4. Debora Jones says:

    Nice article! Very thorough and well written. I’ve posted a link to it on my blog.

  5. […] discussion. (Although self-validation of the chosen search method seems to be a little bit like the fox guarding the hen house problem with the self-collection of data.) I would advocate that the DESI workshop in June include […]

  6. […] Ralph, “Another “Fox Guarding the Hen House” Case Shows the Dangers of Self-Collection,” e-Discovery Team blog, March 20, […]

  7. […] folks have called this practice an example of a “fox guarding the henhouse,” in my mind it’s less that custodial bias renders self collection too risky for prime time.  […]

  8. Tinzing Artmann says:

    As always, love this article. I think from para’s perspective, we have to make sure that our attorneys are on top of issuing a litigation hold and making aware of cases like this. However small your client’s annual revenue is, “SANCTION” will be enforced if proper collection is not done.

    Yet again, FRCP 26(g) does provide a safe harbor where stakes are not as high as this case. When the claim of the damages is 50K, i don’t think it is reasonable to ask client to not self collect and spent 60K in collection, reviewing and production. Self collection, if followed per the industry guideline can be really helpful if the cases are small. However, decision like this will provide guidance in shaping the preservation efforts and making E-discovery effort as painless as possible. I am always for Rule 26(f) meet and confer. I wish every State enforces that in their rule book.

    Thanks again for a wonderful breakdown detail analysis of the case here! As always enjoy reading your postings.

  9. […] In anticipation of the district court’s review, the order preemptively rejects plaintiffs’ assertion that defendant MSL’s protocol is not sufficiently transparent.  In so doing, Judge Peck reasons that plaintiffs will be able to see how MSL codes emails.  If they disagree with MSL’s decisions, plaintiffs will be able to seek judicial intervention. (Id. at 16.)  Plaintiffs appear to argue that although this and other steps in the predictive coding protocol are transparent, the overall protocol (viewed in its entirety) is not transparent or fair.  The crux of plaintiffs’ argument is that just because MSL provides a few peeks behind the curtain during this complex process, many important decisions impacting the accuracy and quality of the document production are being made unilaterally by MSL.  Plaintiffs essentially conclude that such unilateral decision-making does not allow them to properly vet MSL’s methodology, which leads to a fox guarding the hen house problem. […]

%d bloggers like this: